DOCSLIB.ORG

2008 Review Water Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2008 Review Water Quality Standards for Salinity Colorado River System 2008 Review Water Quality Standards For Salinity Colorado River System October 2008 Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum 2008 REVIEW WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SALINITY COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM October 2008 Prepared by Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM MEMBERS ARIZONA Perri Benemelis, Manager, Office of Colorado River Management Department of Water Resources Joan Card, Director, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Larry R. Dozier, Deputy General Manager Central Arizona Water Conservation District CALIFORNIA Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director Colorado River Board of California Celeste Cantú, General Manager Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority COLORADO Jennifer L. Gimbel, Director, Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources Steven H. Gunderson, Director, Water Quality Control Division Department of Public Health and Environment David W. Robbins, Attorney at Law NEVADA Anthony Miller, Colorado River Commission of Nevada Leo M. Drozdoff, Administrator, Division of Environmental Protection Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Kay Brothers, Deputy General Manager, Engineering/Operations Southern Nevada Water Authority NEW MEXICO John R. D’Antonio, Jr., P.E., State Engineer New Mexico State Engineer Office UTAH Dennis J. Strong, Director, Division of Water Resources Department of Natural Resources John Whitehead, Assistant Director, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Randy Crozier, General Manager Duchesne County Water Conservancy District WYOMING Patrick T. Tyrrell, State Engineer State Engineer's Office John F. Wagner, Administrator, Water Quality Division Department of Environmental Quality Dan S. Budd, Interstate Stream Commissioner FORUM Jack A. Barnett, Executive Director Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum i ii TRANSMITTAL LETTERS The Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires that at least once every three years the Basin states review water quality standards relating to the salinity of the waters of the River. The states collectively initiated this review under the auspices of the Forum, prepared a proposed Review and, after holding public meetings, prepared this final Review. Upon the Forum's adoption of the final Review, it is transmitted by letter to the governors of the individual states for their independent action. The following governors in each of the seven Basin states shall receive this Review: Honorable Janet Napolitano Honorable Bill Richardson Governor of Arizona Governor of New Mexico State Capitol State Capitol Phoenix, AZ 85007 Santa Fe, NM 87503 Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger Honorable Jon M. Huntsman, Jr. Governor of California Governor of Utah State Capitol State Capitol Sacramento, CA 95814 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Honorable Bill Ritter, Jr. Honorable Dave Freudenthal Governor of Colorado Governor of Wyoming State Capitol State Capitol Denver, CO 80203 Cheyenne, WY 82002 Honorable Jim Gibbons Governor of Nevada State Capitol Carson City, NV 89701 iii SUMMARY This Review is a review of the water quality standards for salinity for the River. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires that water quality standards be reviewed from time to time, but at least once during each three-year period. Accordingly, the seven-state Forum has reviewed the existing state-adopted and USEPA approved water quality standards for salinity consisting of numeric criteria and a plan of implementation for salinity control for the River system. During the period of the 2005 Review, Reclamation enhanced its model to include analysis of the River salinity. The model has been used to make new salinity projections for this Review. Upon adoption by the Forum, this Review will be submitted to each of the Basin states for consideration as each state proceeds with its three-year water quality review process. The Forum recommends no change in the numeric salinity criteria at the three stations located on the lower main stem of the River. The numeric criteria at these stations will remain: Station Salinity in mg/L1 Below Hoover Dam 723 Below Parker Dam 747 At Imperial Dam 879 In past Reviews, the plan of implementation was intended to maintain the salinity concentrations at or below the numeric criteria while the Basin states continued to develop their compact-apportioned waters. Reclamation’s computer model runs indicate there is little probability of the numeric criteria being exceeded in the next three years. The Act requires the implementation of salinity control programs to reduce the salinity of the River. Reducing the salinity of the River will reduce economic damages. The plan of implementation accompanying the Review emphasizes the reduction of salinity levels to reduce economic damages in the Lower Basin, as well as providing benefits in the Upper Basin. The Forum’s plan of implementation includes: 1. Completion of Reclamation, BLM, and USDA-NRCS salinity control measures to the extent that each unit remains viable and appropriately cost-effective. 2. Completion of activities implemented under the cooperative agreements between Reclamation and the States of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. 3. Implementation of the Forum's recommended and adopted policies for effluent 1 Flow-weighted average annual salinity. iv limitations, principally under the NPDES permit program established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act as amended. The implemented policies (included in Appendix B of this Review) are the following: Policy for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program; NPDES Permit Program for Implementation of Colorado River Salinity Standards; Policy for Use of Brackish and/or Saline Waters for Industrial Purposes; Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Intercepted Ground Water; and Policy for Implementation of the Colorado River Salinity Standards Through the NPDES Permit Program for Fish Hatcheries. 4. Implementation of non-point source management plans developed by the states and approved by the USEPA. The Program is a unique cooperative watershed effort between several federal agencies and seven states designated to meet national, international and state water quality objectives. Item 1 of the plan listed above is to be implemented by federal agencies in conjunction with state, local, and private participants. The Forum works jointly with federal agencies on developing measures to be implemented. The Forum also urges Congress to ensure that the funds necessary to successfully fulfill this plan of implementation are appropriated as needed. Item 2 above involves the expenditure of cost sharing funds required by The Act to be obtained from the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund and the Lower Colorado River Basin Development Fund. Items 3 and 4 above are primarily implemented by each of the Basin states. The water quality standards involve both a plan of implementation and numeric criteria. With the plan of implementation as proposed in this Review in place, the probability of exceeding the numeric criteria is low based on Reclamation computer model simulations. The analysis indicates the probability of exceedance of the numeric criteria with the plan of implementation in place in the next three years at the Hoover Dam, Parker Dam and Imperial Dam stations is 1% or less. This low probability of exceedance opportunity was an important factor in the Forum’s decision to adopt the plan of implementation accompanying this Review. v TABLE OF CONTENTS COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM MEMBERS............................................. i COLORADO RIVER BASIN MAP.............................................................................................................ii TRANSMITTAL LETTERS .......................................................................................................................iii SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................................. vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................viii PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW...................................................................................................................... 1 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND............................................................................................................... 1 UNDERSTANDING THE SALINITY OF THE RIVER............................................................................. 3 PROVISION FOR REVIEWING AND REVISING THE STANDARD .................................................... 7 NUMERIC CRITERIA................................................................................................................................. 8 PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................................................. 9 General................................................................................................................................ 9 Federal Programs .............................................................................................................. 11 States Cost Sharing and Cooperative Agreements...........................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cultural Landscape Planning: the Mexicali Valley, Mexico
    The Sustainable City VII, Vol. 1 457 Cultural landscape planning: the Mexicali Valley, Mexico R. I. Rojas-Caldelas1, C. A. Pena-Salmon1 & J. Ley-Garcia2 1Faculty of Architecture and Design, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali, México 2Institute of Research in Social Sciences, Autonomous University of Baja California, Mexicali, México Abstract Initiating around the eighties, the academic training of landscape architects in Mexico is quite recent compared with the tradition in Europe and the U.S. Also new, is the development of landscape research conducted mainly by geographers, urban planners and other professionals trained in natural sciences, whose work is primarily oriented to land use management for urban development and conservation of natural resources or cultural heritage purposes. However, the issue of the cultural landscape in Mexico has been little explored and lacks any integrated and multidisciplinary methodology to bring together social, cultural and natural processes for study. Therefore, this work focuses on the presentation of an appropriate methodology to address the issue of the evolving cultural landscape of the Valley of Mexicali. This work has been developed into three stages: characterization, multiple assessment of landscape and integration of strategies for their management. Thus progress will be presented for the characterization of physical units, landscape components through pictures, visual and spatial patterns of landscape that structure the region and its settlements. As a partial result it was found that multi-valued zones visually and spatially exist in the Mexicali Valley, as well as activities that give character and differentiate it from other agricultural areas of Baja California. Keywords: cultural landscape, landscape assessment methodologies, visual and spatial assessment, sustainable landscape planning.
    [Show full text]
  • CO2 Sequestration ■ Mine Water Used for Irrigation, by the Supercritical State of CO in the Subsurface Has Fluid-Like Behavior, Thus Jeffrey C
    NONPROFIT ORG. A publication of SAHRA, an NSF Science and Technology Center Technology and Science NSF an SAHRA, of publication A Southwest Hydrology University of Arizona - SAHRA US POSTAGE P.O. Box 210158-B PAID Tucson, AZ TUCSON AZ Sequestration 85721-0158 PERMIT 541 2 CO Address Service Requested September/October 2009 September/October Volume 8/Number 5 8/Number Volume The Resource for Semi-Arid Hydrology Semi-Arid for Resource The Celebrating ten years and two new offices: Offering comprehensive hydrogeologic services in five integrated areas: Groundwater Supply: extensive experience in groundwater development and aquifer storage and recovery including well drilling technology, borehole evaluation, well design and installation oversight, well rehabilitation, plus an Arizona well driller's license. Groundwater Modeling: technical abilities combined with interpretive skill acquired through five decades of collective team experience in creating and interpreting models. Hydrogeologic Investigations: focused It’s an amazing time to be in business application of hydrogeological analyses to resolve groundwater issues, address In the last ten years we have witnessed seismic shifts—changes that have regulatory concerns and water rights affected our personal lives, our communities, and our professional pursuits. issues, and support water-resources Clear Creek Associates began in September 1999 as an Arizona planning. hydrological consulting company with a solid foundation of scientific and Environmental Services: sound relationships with regulators and professional experience. Over the last ten years, we have seen that experience demonstrated experience in developing grow with the emergence of new technology and new perspectives on water remediation strategies and resolving issues. As we mark our first decade in business, our staff, too, has grown by a environmental problems at complex sites in a cost-effective manner; factor of ten.
    [Show full text]
  • Comments – Ngos APS IRP Docket
    BEFORE THE ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION Bob Burns, Chairman Boyd Dunn, Commissioner Sandra Kennedy, Commissioner Lea Marquez Peterson, Commissioner Justin Olson, Commissioner RE: APS 2020 RESOURCE PLANNING DOCKET NO. E-00000V-19-0034 AND PROCUREMENT Overview Diné CARE, Tó Nizhóni Ání and Black Mesa Trust (Navajo and Hopi nongovernmental community organizations or NGOs) respectfully submit the following joint comments for your review in response to the Arizona Corporation Commission’s (ACC) consideration of Arizona Public Service Company’s (APS) 2020 integrated resource plan and procurement process in the above-referenced docket. We submitted comments in a previous APS resource planning proceeding, Docket No. E-00000V-15-0094, in 2018, and after reviewing the current plans, we acknowledge the important steps APS has taken to improve on the last iteration of its resource planning. It is notable that in just two short years, the utility has transformed itself from a dramatic over-reliance on coal and natural gas to a commitment to de-carbonizing its generation portfolio over the coming years. That, in itself, is laudable. However, our review of APS’s 2020 IRP still leaves a number of critical issues unaddressed that we first identified in 2018 and which remain deficiencies in the current plan, especially as they relate to the long-term prosperity and wellbeing of the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe and coal-impacted tribal communities. In light of the problems summarized below, we recommend that the Commission take steps to improve this resource plan in ways that provide advantages for both tribes – while still benefiting the utilities’ customers and shareholders.
    [Show full text]
  • ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
    Arizona Department of Water Resources September 2010 ARIZONA WATER ATLAS Volume 1 Executive Summary ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Herbert Guenther Deputy Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources Karen Smith Assistant Director, Hydrology Frank Corkhill Assistant Director, Water Management Sandra Fabritz-Whitney Atlas Team (Current and Former ADWR staff) Linda Stitzer, Rich Burtell – Project Managers Kelly Mott Lacroix - Asst. Project Manager Phyllis Andrews Carol Birks Joe Stuart Major Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Tom Carr John Fortune Leslie Graser William H. Remick Saeid Tadayon-USGS Other Contributors (Current and Former ADWR staff) Matt Beversdorf Patrick Brand Roberto Chavez Jenna Gillis Laura Grignano (Volume 8) Sharon Morris Pam Nagel (Volume 8) Mark Preszler Kenneth Seasholes (Volume 8) Jeff Tannler (Volume 8) Larri Tearman Dianne Yunker Climate Gregg Garfin - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Ben Crawford - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Casey Thornbrugh - CLIMAS, University of Arizona Michael Crimmins – Department of Soil, Water and Environmental Science, University of Arizona The Atlas is wide in scope and it is not possible to mention all those who helped at some time in its production, both inside and outside the Department. Our sincere thanks to those who willingly provided data and information, editorial review, production support and other help during this multi-year project. Arizona Water Atlas Volume 1 CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Atlas Purpose and Scope 1 SECTION 1.1 Atlas
    [Show full text]
  • Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System Summary Report
    Draft Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System Summary Report Prepared for Imperial Irrigation District December 2001 2525 Airpark Drive Redding, California In Association with: Keller-Bliesner Engineering Davids Engineering Colorado State University Allen Engineering Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................1-1 IID Irrigation and Drainage Systems................................................................................1-1 Water Transfer Basics..........................................................................................................1-4 Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System..................................................................1-5 IID System Representation....................................................................................1-5 IIDSS Purpose .........................................................................................................1-5 Peer Review..........................................................................................................................1-6 2.0 Design of the Imperial Irrigation Decision Support System.....................................2-1 Irrigation System Overview...............................................................................................2-1 Delivery System......................................................................................................2-3 On-farm System......................................................................................................2-3
    [Show full text]
  • Arizona Technical Support Document (PDF)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Technical Support Document ARIZONA Nonattainment Area Designations for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard Summary Pursuant to section 107(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA must initially designate areas as either “nonattainment,” “attainment,” or “unclassifiable” for the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). The CAA defines a nonattainment area as one that does not meet the NAAQS or that contributes to poor air quality in a nearby area that does not meet the NAAQS. Table 1 below identifies the counties and portions of counties in Arizona that EPA has initially designated “nonattainment” based on monitored violations. EPA is not yet prepared to designate other areas in Arizona, and will address such areas in a subsequent round of final designations. Table 1. Nonattainment Designations for Arizona Arizona’s Recommendation of EPA’s Designated Area (listed alphabetically) Areas/Counties Nonattainment Areas/Counties Hayden Gila County (partial) Nonattainment Nonattainment Pinal County (partial) Nonattainment Nonattainment Miami Gila County (partial) Nonattainment Nonattainment Background On June 2, 2010, EPA revised the primary SO2 NAAQS (75 FR 35520, June 22, 2010) by establishing a new 1-hour standard at a level of 75 parts per billion (ppb), which is met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations is less than or equal to 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with Appendix T of 40 CFR part 50. 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b). EPA has determined that this is the level necessary to provide protection of public health with an adequate margin of safety, especially for children, the elderly, and those with asthma.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of report (Date of earliest event reported): September 13, 2016 Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter; State of Incorporation; IRS Employer Commission File Number Address and Telephone Number Identification Number 1-8962 Pinnacle West Capital Corporation 86-0512431 (an Arizona corporation) 400 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 53999 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 (602) 250-1000 1-4473 Arizona Public Service Company 86-0011170 (an Arizona corporation) 400 North Fifth Street, P.O. Box 53999 Phoenix, AZ 85072-3999 (602) 250-1000 Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: ¨ Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) ¨ Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) ¨ Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) This combined Form 8-K is separately filed or furnished by Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service Company. Each registrant is filing or furnishing on its own behalf all of the information contained in this Form 8-K that relates to such registrant and, where required, its subsidiaries.
    [Show full text]
  • New and Alamo River Wetlands Master Plan Revised Final Report May 21, 2007
    NEW AND ALAMO RIVER WETLANDS MASTER PLAN REVISED FINAL REPORT MAY 21, 2007 Prepared for: Wildlife Conservation Board Salton Sea Authority Sacramento, CA La Quinta, CA Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Wetlands Management Services Lafayette, CA Chelsea, MI New and Alamo River Wetlands Master Plan Revised Final Report May 21, 2007 Prepared for: Wildlife Conservation Board Salton Sea Authority 1807 13th Street, Suite 103 78-401 Highway 111, Suite T Sacramento, CA 95814 La Quinta, CA 92253 Prepared by: Tetra Tech, Inc. Wetlands Management Services 3746 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 300 6995 Westbourne Dr. Lafayette, CA 94549 Chelsea, MI 48118 New and Alamo River Wetland Master Plan, Final Report Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... ES-1 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Summary of Prior Work............................................................................................................1-1 1.2 Organization of Master Plan Report .......................................................................................1-6 2. Historical Water Quality Data in the Alamo and New River Basins..........2-1 2.1 New and Alamo River Flow......................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Water Quality – New River......................................................................................................2-5
    [Show full text]
  • Selenium Roy A
    Nutrient Dynamics in the Salton Basin-­ Implications from Calcium, Uranium, Molybdenum, and Selenium Roy A. Schroeder, U. S. Geological Survey, San Diego, California and Willian H. Orem, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia H31B-02 ABSTRACT: The Salton Sea has been accumulating chemical constituents delivered by its tributary streams for nearly 100 years because it has no outlet. The buildup of chemicals that are highly soluble and unreactive, such as chloride, has resulted in the development of a quasi- marine lake. In contrast, chemicals that react to form insoluble phases ultimately enter the sediment that accumulates on the floor of the Sea. Solubility properties are especially relevant for two important contaminants, selenium and nitrogen. The selenium is contained in Colorado River water used for irrigation, and nitrogen is derived mostly from chemical fertilizer in agricultural runoff. Both are delivered to the Salton Sea as highly soluble oxyanions by the Alamo and New Rivers, which are relatively high in dissolved oxygen at their outlets to the Salton Sea, but are removed as reduced species in anoxic sediment on the Sea’s floor. Without this removal mechanism, selenium concentration would presently be about 400 micrograms per liter and nitrogen would be about 100 milligrams per liter in the Salton Sea’s water, rather than the observed concentrations of only about 1 microgram per liter and 5 milligrams per liter, respectively. Ironically, anoxic conditions responsible for producing the noxious odors and low oxygen conditions that lead to periodic dieoffs of large numbers of fish in the Salton Sea have prevented aqueous selenium and nitrogen from reaching levels that could indeed pose an extreme environmental hazard.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Goals and Objectives
    Appendix C Biological Goals and Objectives Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES C.1 Process for Developing the Biological Goals and Objectives This section outlines the process for drafting the Biological Goals and Objectives (BGOs) and describes how they inform the conservation strategy for the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP or Plan). The conceptual model shown in Exhibit C-1 illustrates the structure of the BGOs used during the planning process. This conceptual model articulates how Plan-wide BGOs and other information (e.g., stressors) contribute to the development of Conservation and Management Actions (CMAs) associated with Covered Activities, which are monitored for effectiveness and adapted as necessary to meet the DRECP Step-Down Biological Objectives. Terms used in Exhibit C-1 are defined in Section C.1.1. Exhibit C-1 Conceptual Model for BGOs Development Appendix C C-1 August 2014 Draft DRECP and EIR/EIS APPENDIX C. BIOLOGICAL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The BGOs follow the three-tiered approach based on the concepts of scale: landscape, natural community, and species. The following broad biological goals established in the DRECP Planning Agreement guided the development of the BGOs: Provide for the long-term conservation and management of Covered Species within the Plan Area. Preserve, restore, and enhance natural communities and ecosystems that support Covered Species within the Plan Area. The following provides the approach to developing the BGOs. Section C.2 provides the landscape, natural community, and Covered Species BGOs. Specific mapping information used to develop the BGOs is provided in Section C.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Flow of the Colorado River and Other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data
    WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 RECENL.iJ Flow of SEpgg 2m® The Colorado RiveyBwc .and other Western Boundary Streams and INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO DEPARTMENT OF STATE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1994 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION UNITED STATES AND MEXICO UNITED STATES SECTION MEXICAN SECTION JOHN M . BERNAL J. ARTURO HERRERA SOLIS .Commissioner Commissioner El Paso, Texas Cd. Juarez, Chihuahua ALTON L . GOFF CECILIO LOMELI LOPEZ Chief Area Subdirector Yuma, Arizona Hydro Office Mexicali, Baja California WESTERN WATER BULLETIN 1994 Flow of The Colorado River and other Western Boundary Streams and Related Data COLORADO RIVER TIJUANA RIVER SANTA CRUZ RIVER SAN PEDRO RIVER WHITE WATER DRAW 1994 2 WESTERN BOUNDARY WATER BULLETIN - 1994 - INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION CONTENTS Foreword and Acknowledgments 4 General Hydrologic Conditions for 1994 6 Map of Western Boundary - Douglas, Arizona to Pacific Ocean 44 I - COLORADO RIVER - IMPERIAL DAM TO GULF OF CALIFORNIA Map of Lower Colorado River, United States and Mexico . Following Page 84 QUANTITY OF WATER Stream-Flow and Stage Records Tributary - Reservation Main Drain No . 4 (California Drain) 8 Yuma Main Canal Wasteway to Colorado River at Yuma, Arizona 9 Colorado River below Yuna Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Discharges 10 below Yuma Main Canal Wasteway at Yuma, Arizona - Stages 11 Tributary - Yuma Mesa Outlet Drain to Colorado River near Yuma, Arizona 12 Drain No . 8-8 (Araz Drain) 13 Pilot Knob Power Plant and Wasteway
    [Show full text]
  • Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97
    Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97 Open-File Report 02-232 Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dissolved Pesticides in the Alamo River and the Salton Sea, California, 1996–97 By Kathryn L. Crepeau, Kathryn M. Kuivila, and Brian Bergamaschi Prepared in cooperation with the CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOUCRES CONTROL BOARD Sacramento, California 2002 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR GALE A. NORTON, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Charles G. Groat, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. For additional information write to: Copies of this report can be purchased from: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Placer Hall, Suite 2012 Information Services 6000 J Street Building 810 Sacramento, CA 95819-6129 Box 25286, Federal Center http://ca.water.usgs.gov Denver, CO 80225-0286 CONTENTS Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Sample Collection, Processing, and Analysis ...................................................................................................... 3 Sampling Results.................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]